The Abortion's Not What Leapt Out at Me

Stephen Tyler and his 14 year old girlfriend.

Sorry, I was so disturbed I forgot the trigger warning: child molestation/rape. Enjoy this completely ethical otter instead. Really, seriously sorry about that.

So, mommylife (whom I cannot link to because that page makes my antivirus software go into such a fit, it crashes my chrome) has this post up about the affects of abortion on the fathers:

Long before he won accolades as an American Idol judge, Steven Tyler was a bona-fide rock star, with all that that implied. In 1975, when he was in his late 20s and the lead singer for the band Aerosmith, Tyler persuaded the parents of his 14-year-old girlfriend, Julia Holcomb, to make him her legal guardian so that they could live together in Boston.

When Miss Holcomb and Tyler conceived a child, his longtime friend Ray Tabano convinced Tyler that abortion was the only solution. In the Aerosmith "autobiography," Walk This Way (in which recollections by all the band members, and their friends and lovers, were assembled by the author Stephen Davis), Tabano says: "So they had the abortion, and it really messed Steven up because it was a boy. He . . . saw the whole thing and it [messed] him up big time."

Tyler also reflects on his abortion experience in the autobiography. "It was a big crisis. It's a major thing when you're growing something with a woman, but they convinced us that it would never work out and would ruin our lives. . . . You go to the doctor and they put the needle in her belly and they squeeze the stuff in and you watch. And it comes out dead. I was pretty devastated. In my mind, I'm going, Jesus, what have I done?"

Read more at National Review Online

You know, Barbara may be all sympathic to Stephen's feelings, but you know what stuck out for me? This:

In 1975, when he was in his late 20s and the lead singer for the band Aerosmith, Tyler persuaded the parents of his 14-year-old girlfriend, Julia Holcomb, to make him her legal guardian so that they could live together in Boston

Um . . . Barbara, what part of that doesn't make your skin crawl? You are the mother of multiple daughters and the fact that Stephen Tyler was at least 28 and having sex with raping* a 14 year old, over whom he had legal guardianship, does not bother you? Really? You are disgusting! Almost as disgusting as Stephen himself, not to mention the girl's parents. (I did not fail to copy any part of her post wherein she expresses even the smallest degree of discomfort with this. I may be the Empress of Snarktastica, but I am fair.)

So, anyway, what about the abortion? Well, were I Stephen's friend at that point (leaving aside that I would have called the cops when I found out he was raping a 14 year old), I would have recommended an abortion, too, for two reasons:

1. This child was in an inherently abusive relationship with a grown man. Further tying herself to him with a baby would only make matters worse.

2. Stephen's proven that he likes to rape children. Does anyone here feel comfortable with him having children, because I don't. Sure, maybe the incest thing would hold him back, but who wants to take that chance? Barbara, apparently.

So, no, I don't have a problem with an abortion in this case. At all. Not that I ever have a problem with someone else's choice to do with their body as they please, but in this case, huzzah!

Just as a side note, Stephen Tyler is why my husband and I stopped watching American Idol this year. (What? He's launching his career as a performing artist this year- please participate!- so it's basically research.) After the second time Stephen blatantly hit on an underage girl, my husband turns to me and says, "That was skeevy, right? I mean, you saw that, too?"

I said, "Yeah, that . . . makes me uncomfortable, too."

He said, "I would feel skeevy hitting on a 20 year old, and I'm at least half Stephen Tyler's age. That girl was 16, I have nieces older than that!"

I said, "Yeah, I know. So, no more American Idol?"

He said, "Never again."

Seriously, people, I was never a big Aerosmith fan, but this puts the entire catalogue in a new light. Was Janie pointing her gun at Stephen? Was it a 9 year old driving him crazy? Ew.

*He's a minimum of 28, she's 14. There cannot be consent in that situation. I'm calling it what it is.

Men Just Aren't Used to "No"?

[trigger warning: rape. please visit this delightful otter instead.]

(Also, much thanks to [redacted] who actually answers me when I sent this post, half written, and asked "where am I going with this?")

Women as gatekeepers of sex is so deeply ingrained in our society that it took me 35 years to figure out what's wrong with natural family planning- although something about it always struck me as wrong*. I just couldn't figure out what.

Oh, right, you might need some background, because you're not actually in my brain. (We're all better off that way, trust me.) According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is either an institute seeking to advance sexual and reproductive health worldwide or the world leader in the production of aborted baby lasagna, 98% of Catholic women, including women who go to church at least once a month, use some form of birth control, including sterilization, IUDs and birth control pills.

This is controversial in that the Pope says that birth control is bad and there is no excuse for it. Are you currently living in poverty, unable to feed yourself, let alone someone else? Have more babies! Do you live in an area where 1 in 2 people are infected with HIV? Have unprotected sex! Do you currently have Stage IV cancer? Moar baybeez!

Really, though, is anyone surprised that almost all Catholic women capable of ignoring this advice currently are? Apparently, some people are, but those people have some startling views on consent and gatekeeping.

I think it takes a lot of courage and faith in God to use NFP during a marriage. I say this with deep trepidation, but the biggest draw back I’ve encountered is an unwillingless on behalf of my husband to abstain. I think a lot of men who grew up in the Post Pill era have never been told that they can’t have sex, ever. It’s really hard to get someone to change in a marriage. And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, and I went to confession, I’ve never had a priest give me a hard time about it.

There are so many things wrong with that paragraph, and none of them are the birth control pill. "an unwillingless on behalf of my husband to abstain." What she means to say is that she says no to sex and he won't take that no as an answer. That's not an unwillingness to abstain, that's rape**. And it's not the fault of slutty pill-popping feminists. He's heard "no" before. Every man has heard "no" before and will hear it again. His problem is that he is a rapist.

This makes me see red: And the times that I’ve had to give in to him, and I went to confession . . .

Her husband ignored her when she said "no" and she went to confession? And the priest said anything other than "you need to leave him, now"? I'm not surprised by that, and it makes me sad that I'm not surprised by that. I hope nobody wonders about my deep-rooted cynicism.

Serious consent issues aside, this is a major drawback of natural family planning. One of many. Abusive men frequently sabotage birth control in order to gain more control over their victims. Pregnant women are less likely to leave- and more likely to be killed. Homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in America. That's right. Murder. And that is true across all races and all socioeconomic classes. Abusive men sabotage birth control, impregnate their partners, abuse escalates during pregnancy and leads to murder a disturbing percentage of the time.

Natural family planning requires the consent of both parties to work. If one partner decides that this no thing isn't working for them, there is no birth control. In the above example, at least the husband is agreeing to use some other form of birth control (my guess would be condoms), but now this woman is carrying around guilt that she prevented a pregnancy in what is clearly a rather unhealthy relationship.

And why is she carrying this guilt around? Because women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men want sex, all the time, women do not. Women only have sex to get love or money or commitment. Men cannot control their sexual urges, women don't really have sexual urges so it's up to women to allow, but not enjoy, sex or not. This woman is upset because of the abuse, but she's also upset because she feels that she has failed at the one job women aren't supposed to fail at: gatekeeping the sex.

NFP really depends on women successfully gatekeeping, as women are the ones who suffer the most from pregnancy, physically, emotionally, financially, socially, etc. Ultimately, women must succeed at gatekeeping for NFP to work, and as shown above, gatekeeping ain't always easy.

*Other than the 25% failure rate, that is.

**I think that someone might point out that her husband isn't raping her, he's pestering her until she relents, so, in the immortal words of [redacted]: What [Faith is] trying to say in the double-star note is that all "she gave in" apologists can just not bother commenting, because badgering one's life partner until he/she gives in...is NOT getting consent. It's the gatekeeper now being responsible for KEEPING THE PEACE, TOO, SO STFU.

The Devil Made Me Do It

[trigger warning: rape. please enjoy this delightful otter instead.]

[note: taking a new medication. feeling very . . . odd. having trouble writing, well finding words, really. more on that later.]

I am frustrated by the concept of god(s): it's illogical, irrational and, as evidenced by what's going on in the US lately, it stifles science and encourages bad government and bad behavior over all. "God says" becomes the easy, and impossible to argue, rationale for all beliefs, beliefs that, unsurprisingly, precisely mirror the speaker's own prejudices and desires. (See: All Republican action against women currently in the works.)

I am downright enraged by the concept of the devil, however. Satan is the externalization of the evil in all of us. I can be selfish. I can be greedy and jealous and just plain mean. I work hard, every day, to not be those things. Sometimes it's a struggle, but it's a deliberate choice I make, a choice to be the very best me I can be. Sometimes, the very best me isn't all that great, but I'm not blaming my bad choices and actions on someone else.

If I'm selfish or greedy or jealous or mean, I own it. (Not always willingly. I'm human.) That was me. I shouldn't have been that way, I shouldn't done that, that was wrong. And that was me. Nobody else. I'm sorry. I'll have to try harder next time.

Satan, though. With Satan around, who has to say they're sorry? No one. Who needs personal accountability when you have Satan to blame? That wasn't me being selfish, that was Satan attacking me. In fact, you should feel sorry for me. Yes, I called you a fat slut and told your husband some pretty vicious lies about you* and caused you all sorts of pain, but you should feel sorry for me, what with the Satan attacking me and all. Why aren't you feeling sorry for me?

Remember the vicious gang rape of the 11-year-old in Cleveland, Texas? (If not, go to a doctor. Who could forget that?) Well, it turns out, it was Satan's fault.

Bertha Cleveland, an aunt of Mr. Cruse, said her nephew went to church regularly, held down a job at McDonald’s and had told her he intended to go to college. “Our younger generation is running rampant,” she said. “The devil is in full control.”

Oh, I see. You can't possibly commit rape if you went to church regularly. It must have been Satan. Rapists don't want to go to college, do they? Definitely Satan.

Guess what? I can wax rhapsodic about the rape culture, about othering, about prejudice and marginalization, and perhaps when my words come back to me, I will. Frankly, I enjoy writing about such things. However, in the end, the fault is with the rapist. He raped. Prejudice didn't reach down and force his penis into that child's vagina. That was him.

And it sure as fuck wasn't some mythological creature in charge of making us do horrible, evil things. We don't need the help.

*No, not really me. The first person just works better in this context. This is directly from a post at a Christian message board. Not making this up. She actually wondered why the victim of her jealous rage didn't feel sorry for her.

Dumb Bitches Get Acid in the Face

(trigger warning: acid attack, rape, domestic violence. please visit these delightful otters instead!]

I can't promise that this entire post will be up to my usual standards of writing (not that I'm exactly Samuel Coleridge to begin with) because this fucking rape culture misogynist bullshit makes me that angry.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but I'll say it again: in an attack of any kind, from unwanted touching to rape to acid thrown in the face, the blame lies with the attacker, not the victim. There is nothing anyone can do to "deserve" having acid thrown in their face. Nothing. Certainly not being confident and independent.

Yeah, you fucking read that right: A woman being confident and independent is asking to be raped and have acid thrown in her face. What does that little slut expect when she leaves her house without a male relative to escort her? What are those dumb bitches thinking when they walk around acting like human beings with rights? Don't they know any better?

Katie Piper is the Englishwoman who, as a beautiful 26-year-old, embarked on a relationship with a thuggish looking man named Daniel Lynch. When Lynch became possessive and angry, Katie Piper tried to break off the relationship. Lynch responded by raping her and then arranged for an accomplice to throw acid in her face, disfiguring her.

See, he was "thuggish looking", what else did she expect besides rape and acid? Because dangerous men always look dangerous. You can tell just by looking, unless you're some dumb slut trying to be all independent.

Why revisit this story? Katie Piper has now explained in more detail what happened in the relationship with Lynch. And I was struck by this brief description of her childhood:

Born in Hampshire in 1983, I had an idyllic childhood. My father David owned a barber shop and my mother Diane was a teacher.They doted on my brother Paul, sister Suzy, and me.

As a youngster I was independent and fearless. I never suspected there was any badness in the world. 'You can be anything you want to be,' Dad used to tell me.

There is a clash between the traditional and the modern here. Girls are not naturally independent and fearless. Traditionally they grew up in the protective warmth of the family. Katie Piper had a traditional childhood in this sense and seems to appreciate it.

But she was also raised with very modern expectations. Her father drummed into her that she could be anything she wanted to be, in other words, that the highest good to aim at was that of maximum autonomy.

See, now there's the problem- daddy didn't protect her enough. Daddy told her that she was a human being who could dream and strive and be autonomous- and we all know what that earns you. This Lynch guy is basically just an innocent bystander, caught in Katie's web of autonomy. If she had just been a good little girl and never dreamed of anything more than being the possession of a man, this never would have happened.

Really, Katie basically raped herself and threw acid in her own face.

In brief, Katie Piper had been protected as a girl by her secure family life; she made a great deal of being independent and fearless; and she saw the world as perfectly open and unlimited and without the restricting presence of evil or malevolence.

Which left her like a babe in the woods. How could she learn prudence, a "caution or circumspection as to danger or risk," when she saw herself as a fearless woman in a world without evil?

Dear Mark Richardson: I am confident in speaking for all women everywhere when I tell you that no woman, no matter how independent, is fearless or views the world as lacking in evil. Every single one of us is well aware that every man we meet could be a rapist. In fact, we're a little more aware of evil than most men are, in that men don't generally expect to be raped at some point in their lives, so let me ask you something: do you expect every person you meet to be the embodiment of evil? Do you hide in your home and only go outside with a full military escort armed with automatic rifles and rocket launchers?

Of course you don't. Because no one can live that way. You go out into the world aware that bad things can happen to you at the hands of bad people and hope for the best. And most days nothing happens. But when something bad does happen- to a man- we don't blame the victim, we blame the perpetrator. Well, from now on, when men are robbed or beaten, we should remind them that that's just the price you pay for leaving your home. You idiot.

So there is little guidance to women in these feminist campaigns about how to evaluate the risk of a particular situation or relationship. And sometimes feminists go further in hindering a sense of prudence in women, by fiercely objecting to any discussion of the issue on the basis that it represents "blaming the victim". Feminists want to focus on "changing men," in the belief that the cause of violence is a political one so that it's possible to eliminate violence against women through political reform.

I suppose, for the time being, it's up to fathers to try to cultivate the quality of prudence in their daughters (without going so far as to scare them from relationships with men).

"Now, honey, if you leave the house without a male escort, you will be beaten, raped and disfigured. What do you mean you don't want to get married?"

Mark Richardson, Mark, Mark, Mark, you fucking . . . obscenities fail me, but just assume I said whatever would offend you the most (liberal, prochoice, feminist probably), but is there any other arena where we don't try to prevent the offenders of crimes from offending? We don't blame anyone but the driver themselves when they drive drunk, do we? We don't blame anyone but the user or dealer of the drugs, do we? And while insurance will give you a discount if you have an alarm system on your home or car, the police don't drag you away if you don't have them, do they?

Yeah, it's just those dumb bitches trying to act like people we blame, right Mark?

Go fuck yourself.

The Word You're Looking For Is "Victim"

The last line. I got all the way through to the last line of this article about tween pregnancy ("not uncommon", yet the author could only find 4 examples- worldwide) before I exploded.

After listing the health risks of young pregnancy, Tom Henderson has this to say about young girls and pregnacy:

The moral of the story? If you want to start a family, wait until you graduate from elementary school.

And maybe -- at least -- a good 12 years after that.

Yes, Mr. Henderson, a pregnant 6-year-old*, 9-year-old** or 10 year-old child was surely the agent of their own sexuality, carelessly seducing the grown men who impregnated them. I'm just going to have to assume that Mr. Henderson is a pedophile, because I can't think of any reason a person would think that. Ever. Except in the case of the 10-year-old Roma girl, who was impregnated by a 13-year-old iirc, all the other cases mentioned were cases of rape- the rape of children by grown men, all of them family members.

Yeah.

So, can we stop with the slut shaming of children now?

*Not a tween.

**Also not a tween.

To Love, Honor and Blame Women for Being Assaulted

[trigger warning- rape. if this discussion will upset you, please click here for a happy otter, instead.]

Sheila Wray Gregoire keeps writing articles about sexual assault, articles that place the blame squarely on the victim, no matter how much she protests that she is not blaming the victim.

Sheila, if I may call you Sheila, and trust me it's way politer than anything else I am inclined to call you, here's a little lesson in communication. If you tell me, "My new wide-screen, LCD HDTV was stolen last night!" and I reply, "Well, why did you buy one of those? Don't you know people like to steal those?" would you say, "Clearly you are not blaming me, kind woman"? No, of course you wouldn't. Because I would be blaming you.

Just like you blame women for being raped.

So far, you have asserted that women are raped because they drink:

In this California case, four teenage boys, aged between 15 and 17, invited two teenage girls, aged 14 and 15, that they had met on the street home for a drink. The girls acquiesced, got drunk, and were then sexually assaulted.

Again, they did not deserve that, and I do hope that the perpetrators face justice. But why in the world were two teenage girls going into a stranger’s home to drink?

That's right, according to Sheila, if you accept a drink, you are agreeing to be raped. You don't really "deserve" it, but what were you thinking?

How about this, Sheila, what were those boys thinking? Why in the world did they invite two teenage girls over, get them drunk and then rape them? Did you think about that? Maybe, just maybe, because everyone like you sends the message if that if a girl accepts a drink (or a ride, or a meal, or a smile) from you, she wants it. She deserves it. Stupid slut, actions have consequences (the title of Sheila's lovely post.)

Heroically, several rape survivors tried to point this out to Sheila, but Sheila just doesn't get it. I can't decide if Sheila is that stupid, that arrogant or both. She moves on to the next big cause of rape: women's behavior, because lecturing men doesn't help. She pulls a statistic out of her ass to make her point.

Look at it this way. If your goal is to reduce rape, and by lecturing boys and men you could reduce it by 5%, and by changing women's behaviour you could reduce it by another 10%, is it not still worth trying to change women's behaviour, even if it doesn't reduce the risk entirely? If we can't reduce the risk completely, should we not still be be talking about changing girls' behaviour? After all, if changing behaviour is effective (and I think staying away from drunken parties does make you safer), then isn't that worth teaching our daughters?

Sure, Sheila, except that you have no fucking idea whether or not targeting men with rape prevention messages would work or not. You have no idea whether or not staying away from drunken parties would make one safer. I specialized in drunken parties from about 17-21 and I was never raped. I have friends that never got drunk once who were. You know what would make you safe? Not encountering a rapist. Got a solution for that? (Hint: not all rapists confine themselves to drunken parties.)

So, anyway, back to valiant commenters calling Sheila on her bullshit, so Sheila takes a different tack. It does not involve blaming the rapist, oh no, this time Sheila has the solution: cleavage. Yes, kids, cleavage causes rape. And possibly Facebook.

To tackle her idea, I want you to picture yourself as the youth leader for a youth group at an amusement park. It's a big outing, and twenty youth have decided to go, and you were asked along as a parent supervisor. You have under your care three girls, all aged 14. Two are dressed in appropriate shorts and T-shirts; one has on short shorts and a bikini top, with a halter tied around it. She is showing more cleavage that you ever have.

Who are you going to be scared for? Who are you going to try to protect?

Yeah, Sheila, and while you're so worried about Miss Halter Top, an 80 year old great grandmother was dragged into the restroom and raped. Rape is far more common in countries where women are required to dress modestly (i.e., burquas, hijab, abaya, etc.) than it is in countries where women are free to dress as they please. Do you know why that is? Because the entire purpose behind such garments is to blame women for the actions of men, which leaves men with the belief that they are not responsible for their actions and hey! let's rape!

But wait, there's more!

My commenter said that modest women get raped and immodest women get raped. Again, I agree. But here's the thing: rape rarely occurs out of the blue. It usually starts with something--maybe you meet a guy, and he seems harmless enough, and you start talking or dancing. And then things go downhill.

That's right, ladies, you talked to him, didn't you? You danced with him? Well, clearly you asked for it, slut. Stop whining about it, you wanted it! Wearing that little red dress and shaking your ass, you should be ashamed!

Sheila, you make me sick.

The Most Disturbing Defense of the Bible I Have Ever Seen

rape, bible, god, fail
Apparently, I've been Poed. Honestly, you can't fake fundamentalism to a degree that makes it obvious you are faking it. No matter how crazy your parody, somebody actually thinks it's the word of god.

Ray Comfort defended the God ordered murders and genocides of the Bible as merely being history. Normally, I would find that disturbing, but commentor Y=X beat that by a mile.

[Trigger Warning: Rape]

I just know some atheist is going to mention

Deuteronomy 22:28-29

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.

Allow me to answer this in advance. When a virgin is raped she is no longer pure and thus her chances for marriage are greatly diminished. God provides for the woman who has become impure due to rape. Since no else will want to marry her, God commands that her attacker marry her and pay her family a tidy sum. The man who rapes a virgin has clearly shown an interest in the woman and so forcing him to marry her doesn't cause him too much distress on him and lessens the chance the marriage will be a really bad existence for the woman.

Making the attacker pay her family a tidy sum helps the family out and in this way the girl helps her family out. So, instead of the woman being considered defiled and an outcast the family can embrace her. She gets a husband and the family gets money.

God setup rules to help even the lowly out. God has a plan for each of us and we just need to seek Him to find out what His plan is.

O_o

That's so . . . is there a word for that? I'm the Queen of Obscene, and I don't know the word for that.

First of all, the impurity angle alone proves to me that either god is a complete asshole, or god didn't write this rule. I can't help it if someone rapes me. No one can help being raped. That's why we call it rape. I can be a good little girl and protect my hymen for all I'm worth, and I'm still at the mercy of anyone who can overpower a 100 lb woman, i.e., almost anyone. (Being a woman, I worry about these things.)

So, god in his infinite mercy and compassion, doesn't simply tell the Israelites "Hey, rape victims are not impure. Treat them with compassion and care." He could have done that, but he doesn't.

Secondly, The man who rapes a virgin has clearly shown an interest in the woman displays such a fundamental misunderstanding of rape that I am amazed. Rape has nothing to do with sex. Rape has nothing to do with desire, lust or anything other than power, rage and control. The man who rapes a woman is showing an interest in humiliating and exercising power over that woman. God's answer to that is to hand that woman over to the man, as property no less? That's the best answer god has? "Here, you've proven that you want to abuse this woman as much as you can, here she is, yours to abuse until she dies!" That's . . . wow.

God has a plan for each of us and we just need to seek Him to find out what His plan is. Apparently, his plan is for me, a woman, to be treated as property. Apparently, his plan is to reward rapists with unlimited access to and power over their victims. That's god's compassion, his love, his plan.

I hope Y=X brings this up to every potential convert he meets. It's certainly good press for the atheists.

Republicans for Rape just got Democratic Help

republican, democrat, rape, franken,
You remember the Republicans for rape, right? In case you don't, Senator Franken's first proposed legislation seemed like a slam dunk: stop defense contractors (who get paid with your money) from denying victims of assault- you know, RAPE- the right to bring their case to court.

It seemed like a slam dunk, but apparently, 30 Republicans think defense contractors need more protection than rape victims. However, at the time it seemed that everything would be okay. 30 Republicans voted for rape, but the remaining 70 Senators voted against rape and for the amendment.

Today, the pro-rape Republicans and their defense contractor buddies got a little help:

An amendment that would prevent the government from working with contractors who denied victims of assault the right to bring their case to court is in danger of being watered down or stripped entirely from a larger defense appropriations bill.

Multiple sources have told the Huffington Post that Sen. Dan Inouye, a longtime Democrat from Hawaii, is considering removing or altering the provision, which was offered by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and passed by the Senate several weeks ago.

This is Senator Inouye's contact information. Go to town.

Sen Inouye's Washington phone is
Washington D.C.
722 Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1102
Phone: 202-224-3934

Honolulu
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Room 7-212
Honolulu, Hawaii 96850-4975
Phone: 808-541-2542
Fax: 808-541-2549

And if you haven't already, please tell the Republicans for Rape how you feel about them, too. (Keep it civil. The Secret Service does not have a sense of humor.)

3 out of 4 Republicans Agree- Rape Victims Should STFU

rape, franken, republican, justice
Due to the terrible injustice experienced by female employees of defense contractors, Al Franken suggested an amendment to the 2010 defense bill that would protect the rights of rape victims and help ensure that rapists are punished for their crimes. Guess who thinks that's a bad idea?

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. She was detained in a shipping container for at least 24 hours without food, water, or a bed, and "warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job." (Jones was not an isolated case.) Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration.

Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court."

30 of 40 Republicans voted against that amendment.

3 out of 4 Republicans voted against rape victims getting their day in court. 3 out of 4 Republicans voted against rapists facing punishment.

Family values, my vagina. These people are monsters.

Spiritual Care?

religion, christian, health care, hatch, enzi, kerry, public option, rape, birth control, abortion, abstinence, safe sex,
The Secular Coalition for America is fighting three amendments to the health care bill that are egregious examples of religious intrusion in government that we all should be aware of and fight against.

Of great concern is a bipartisan amendment sponsored by Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) that would require private and public health plans to cover all "spiritual care" - whether or not the individual has religous objections to medical care. This proposed funding undermines our Constitution and will open up your tax dollars to scam artists.

This amendment will make an existing problem worse. Religious people who object to medical care already have some "spiritual care" covered by Medicare and Medicaid. This "spiritual care" includes reimbursements for payments that Christian Scientists make to members of the Church who pray for them when they are ill. Numerous children have died while receiving this "spiritual care" when modern science would easily have saved their lives. And you helped pay!

We currently pay people to watch children die. Allow me to repeat myself: your tax dollars pay people to watch children die. This is appalling and should not be allowed to continue. The fact that the government doles out tax dollars for this reprehensible practice is . . . I don't know what to say. I don't have words for that.

One Christian Scientist congregation presided over the deaths of 64 children between 1975 and 1995, and Orrin Hatch and John Kerry want to encourage that. I suggest contacting them and telling them no.

Senator Enzi wants to make sure that if my doctor is opposed to birth control pills or, well, anything, he doesn't even have to tell me the treatment exists. This is already a problem with morning after pills, especially for rape victims. Rape victims who visit Christian (usually Catholic) hospitals, or who are seen by those opposed to birth control, are often not even told that after the fact birth control exists. I am personally quite opposed to exposing already traumatized rape victims to the further trauma of having to choose between giving birth to their rapist's baby or aborting it.

We are fighting another amendment, proposed by Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), which would ensure that doctors can deny patients any care or information that violates the doctor's religious beliefs. This violation of medical ethics is labeled with the Orwellian term "Conscience Clause" - i.e. denying or delaying proper care for a person in need. This amendment cruelly places the religious beliefs of practitioners (such as pharmacists) above the medical needs of patients. This amendment threatens your access to contraception, end-of-life care, HIV care, and any other care to which a health provider employee objects.

Senator Hatch also wants to revive abstinence-only programs, despite the fact that they are a miserable failure.

Third, Senator Hatch has submitted an amendment requesting that funding for Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage programs be restored. Congress has wasted $ 1.5 billion on such programs since 1996. Numerous studies, including a 10-year government-funded evaluation of the Title V abstinence-only program, have found that these programs do not delay sexual initiation and have no beneficial impact on young people's health or sexual behavior. In addition to being ineffective and leaving out information on safe sex, many such programs contain false and misleading "medical" statements and teach religious propaganda and theologically-driven gender stereotypes to our children.

There is no reason to teach abstinence only other than religion. Abstinence-only programs don't work, as is ably demonstrated by the fact that teens in highly religious states have the highest pregnancy rates. Abstinence-only programs deter birth control use, not sex.

Please help out teenagers, women, rape victims, children, yourself, and everyone else and tell these politicians, in no uncertain terms, to keep their religion out of the health care bill.

Wow. Just Wow.

ten commandments, crazy, death, penalty, homosexual, rape, bestiality, incest, capital, euthanasia, infanticide, prochoice, prolife, abortion, birth control,
Daniel Florien, at Unreasonable Faith, reminded me of the Society for the Practical Establishment and Perpetuation of the Ten Commandments.



Daniel just did a post on the article "Exposing the Atheist", and I've done a couple on the SPEPTC, as well, so I went looking around the site to see if there was anything new to discuss.



All I have to say is that I clearly didn't look closely enough at this site the first time around.



Controlling the World's Population



by Robert T. Lee



The present world's population of people is said to be nearly 6 billion. It is expected to rise to 8.9 billion by 2030, and reach 10 to 14 billion by 2050. The largest increases are expected to take place in some of the poorer countries, such as Africa and southern Asia. I actually don't know if this is true or not, but it sounds about right, especially with the Pope running around telling people that condoms are Teh Evul.


In view of those projections, more and more attention is being placed on ways to control the world's population.


Some of the present methods proposed and practiced are: legislation restricting how many children a family can have, contraceptives, sterilization, sexual abstinence, permanent celibacy which would be different from sexual abstinence how?, deliberately induced abortions as opposed to accidentally induced abortions?, infanticide, euthanasia, homosexuality i'm pretty sure nobody is a homosexual purely for the sake of population control, delayed marriage, sterilization of the retarded which we could include under "sterilization", war as population control?!, fatal disease inducement upon certain portions of the human population see: what the eurpoeans did to the native americans and etc. "and etc."? uh, yeah.


Although demography draws its insight from several of the so-called intellectual fields, such as anthropology, biology, economics, history, medicine, sociology and statistics, so called intellectual fields? if none of the above are intellectual, what is? it is quite obvious that most of the ways proposed and being tried to control the human population is are blindness -ness, foolishness -ness, immoral and thus infringes upon the God-given rights of the weakest and most innocent of the human community. wait until you see what is seeing, wise, moral and doesn't infringe on rights.



There is a better and more sane way to control the human population without allowing immorality, the immorality of delayed marriage or sexual abstinence? without doing injustice to anyone wait for it. and while not seeking to discourage pronatalist prolife, i think. views among the human population. we don't really care about prochoice lemurs, after all.


Since the population of mankind is a "closed" population - no humans can migrate to and from earth, only the rate of births and deaths can increase or decrease the human population. what living thing on the planet would not qualify as "closed" under this definition? just curious.


Therefore, the way to control the population growth is through the increase of the human mortality rate by legitimate means. we're almost there. Not through the crimes of abortions, infanticide, euthanasia and etc; but through the automatic DEATH PENALTY for the broad spectrum of deeds that are high crimes in the sight of the true GOD. that's right kids, abortion, infanticide and euthanasia are crimes, but the death penalty for adultery is just and righteous. that's his moral answer to overpopulation: kill everyone. This principle of population control has never been addressed by demography. I wonder why? It is the cornerstone better than birth control! of proper human population control which the builders have rejected. i just can't see why.


Some of the high crimes which God requires the human society to vigorously odd use of an adverb enforce the death penalty upon are: blasphemy against the true God i'm dead; idolatry leigh at odins daughter, and denelian, dead.; breaking the Lord's day we're all dead; dishonor to parents every teenager to ever live, dead; murder; adultery according to the last study i saw, 40% of women and 60% of men would be dead; incest; homosexuality half the people i know dead; bestiality; rape not punishable by death in the bible. there are two punishments for rape in the bible: marrying your victim or paying her father; kidnapping what verse is that? god was fine with the israelites kidnapping virgins and turning them into sex slaves; seeking to destroy the righteous what?; putting to death the innocent i'm gonna need a bible verse on that one(such as putting innocent embryos and fetuses to death in abortions); seeking to overthrow God's appointed authority question Mr. Lee and you're dead, etc.

If this method of population control were ever enacted, we wouldn't have to worry about population control, because there would maybe 3 people left, and 2 of them would be in comas.

In order for the world community of humans to actually put this decorous someone needs a dictionary principle into practice, it must adopt the MORAL LAW OF GOD - THE TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the World community. boy am i glad that not only isn't the US a christian nation, but the world isn't christian, either.
This principle of controlling the population punishing everyone everywhere for everything until there isn't anyone left would positively affect the economic prosperity of nations by removing anyone making or spending money?, positively affect the health and increase the life expectancy of lawabidding citizens how? mouthy teenagers aren't the reason for cancer, properly educate the human race in fear i suppose, positively affect the family structure by removing all the families, overwhelmingly reduce crime, etc. actually, capital punishment has never been shown to reduce crime. in fact, capital punishment increases extremely violent crime. think about it: if you're going to get the needle anyway, you may as well go out in a blaze of glory. Every legitimate aspect of the human society would benefit greatly. if by "legitimate aspect" you mean "executioners", i suppose.

By adopting the TEN COMMANDMENTS as the supreme laws of the earth and properly administering them actually the ten commandments don't address bestiality, homosexuality, incest or rape, the true criminals - those worthy of death pretty much everyone, will be the ones put to death instead of the innocent. It is only right to focus on true criminals who commit high crimes of adultery and mouthing off to one's parents in order to control the world's population rather than focusing on the most helpless, innocent and weakest people of the human society. you know, by using birth control.

now that is some grade-A, prime cut crazy, there.

Morals, Values and Children

bible, polygamy, rape, murder, incest, genocide, infanticide, abortion, witchcraft, blasphemy, christian, god,
I hear this a lot: I can't even turn on the television anymore, because even commercials are filled with sex and violence and blasphemy. It's disgusting!

What about the book that these people have no trouble reading, and encourage their children to read: the Bible?

The Bible contains far more offensive material than ever is shown on television, far more violence, far more depravity, even blasphemy and witchcraft. Shocking!

Witchcraft: Pharoah's magicians reproduced several of the plagues, and matched Moses for turning sticks into snakes.

Blasphemy: While Moses was off getting the ten commandments, the Israelites reverted to idol worship.

Incest: After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot's daughters get him drunk, have sex with him and get pregnant.

Genocide: Where to start? The Great Flood, the conquest of Canaan, the almost complete extermination of the tribe of Benjamin by the other 11 tribes . . .

Infanticide/Abortion: God punishes the Israelites for not killing all the women and children of the Midianites, Jephthah killed his young daughter (his only child) by burning her alive as a burnt sacrifice to the lord, the tenth plague was the death of every first-born Egyptian, from newborns to adults.

Rape: The virgins of Jabesh-gilead and the Midianites, to name a few, were captured by the Israelites and held as sex slaves. Also, if a man rapes a woman, he is either to marry her or pay her father for her virginity.

Polygamy: Solomon had 700 wives, Abraham had concubines, Gideon had many wives, etc.

Murder: Well, there's Cain and Abel, and this continues straight through to Peter killing Ananias and Sapphira, for not paying their taxes to the Lord.

I don't know about you, but I'd sooner let a child rent every R rated movie available than expose them to all that!

Note: someone is likely to inform me that the bible doesn't condone these behaviors, it merely describes what happened. The very same could be said of any movie, book or TV show.

The Bill O'Reilly Squad

bill, o'reilly, fox, news, conservative, rape, alexa foundation, amanda terkel
Bill O'Reilly's method of silencing critics is unacceptable and (should be if it isn't already) illegal.

Here and here.

In case you're too lazy to click:

To summarize, if you follow Brad Pitt with a camera for two hours and shout obnoxious questions at him, Bill O'Reilly thinks you're the "scum of the earth." If you follow Amanda Terkel with a camera for two hours and shout obnoxious questions at her, Bill O'Reilly thinks you're a patriot on the Fox News payroll.

It's worth noting, of course, that O'Reilly has a goal here, and it's not limited to bullying and corporate-sponsored stalking. Ultimately, I suspect the goal is to create an atmosphere of fear and intimidation -- don't criticize O'Reilly, or he might send some people to your home.

Under no circumstances is this acceptable.

Saddest and Happiest Thing Ever

lesbian, homophobia, homosexual, gay, pregnant, rape,
I'm not trying to make a point here. I just wanted to share.

I have a lesbian friend (surprise, right?), who has never had sex with a man. (I explain this because plenty of lesbians have had sexual experiences with men, and it's important to know this for what happens next.) About 2 months ago, she was raped. A complete stranger dragged her into the back room at the convenient store where she worked and raped her. That was her one, and doubtless only, sexual experience with a man.

She's 7 weeks pregnant now- and couldn't be happier.

I knew she loved children, I knew she was fantastic with children, but I never realized exactly how much she wanted a child of her own. Unfortunately, she doesn't have the money for IVF or adoption, so she figured she would never get to have a child, that that was something that she would forever be denied. All of our friends have children, and how it must have hurt her to watch everyone else have, multiple times, what she couldn't have once.

Now she will have her rapist's baby and she is thrilled.

I'm thrilled for her, too. It feels wrong to be tangentially happy* that a woman was raped, but life is a funny old dog, ain't she?

ps- I WILL NOT publish any comments decrying her "selfish" choice not to give the baby up for adoption to a hetero couple. It's her baby. Hers.

*by this I mean that I am not happy that she was raped, but she couldn't be pregnant without the rape, so, yeah, I feel weird. Which she is cool enough to totally understand.

Lessons From the Bible

bible, god, jesus, jews, muslim, bible, rape, slavery, christian, christianity, morality, immoral, asshat,
I like to check out the profiles of Ray Comfort's cheerleaders. Oddly, many of them have no viewable profile at all, or profiles with no information. Those with blogs are frequently the source of much amusement.

The Lord's Beautiful Things, not so much.

Prepare the Way for the Lord

In the desert prepare the way for the Lord; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. Isaiah 40:3 What's interesting about this isn't the meaning of the quote, it's the translation. That is the New International Version, which is anethema to Christian fundamentalists, who all cling to the King James Version of the bible, for reasons I have never been able to make heads or tails of. (It's not like the texts were originally written in English. Oh, and Jesus was not a blue-eyed blonde.)

Dictionary.com says that a desert is-any area in which few forms of life can exist because of lack of water, permanent frost, or absence of soil.-any place lacking in something-of, pertaining to, or like a desert; desolate; barren. thanks for that. that really cleared nothing up for me.

We are in the desert right now. i suppose if we're in nevada, arizona, utah, parts of texas or california, but i'm not. i'm in pennsylvania. not a desert. America is the land of the free and the home of the brave!, but we are not really free it's true, but it's not like i wanted to go on a shooting spree. well, not that much.. The majority of us are walking around following trends, fashions, and behaviors because we think we should freely choosing to do so, in fact. People boast how in America you are free to do whatever you want except for stealing, raping, murdering, shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, think and act how you want yes, you are free to think whatever you want. some people should take less advantage of that, but whatever, and wear what you want, but they are wrong.

How many times do you pick up a magazine and Say, "oooh, I want that!" , "I HAVE to have it"? in a given day? a week? what? besides, saying you really want something isn't wrong or inherently bad. i just, yeah, i dunno. Whether its is Glamor Magazine hey now, I read Glamour, it's not that bad., or Popular Mechanics, evil technology! people are always out to sell you something. welcome to the US. And not just sell you something, but tell you something as well. where is this going?

Fashion magazines tell young girls that they are not pretty if they don't wear the latest fashions actually, i thought fashion magazines told girls they're not pretty if they don't weigh less than me, but whatever. they're in the business of selling stuff, what do you expect? my niece figured out the lack of truth/reality in advertising by the time she was 6., the radio tells young men that it's okay to demean women and call them all sorts of nasty words ah, rap. not my favorite form of expression, but i don't think we can blame all society ills on a bunch of quasimusicians., and NOTHING in our general society talks about God.

Stop right there, asshat. Nothing? NOTHING? Take a dollar bill out of your wallet and tell me all about the total lack of god in general society. Need to swear to something in Court? you'll need a bible, or you'll need to out yourself as nonchristian. say the pledge of allegiance. written without "under god", but there it is today.

honestly.

The Bible tells you just as easily how to dress really? i did see a few passages on how the Aaronic High Priests were to dress (like a cross between a gay pride parade and any given day at the Vatican), but not a whole lot on the rest of us. unless we count not mixing fibers in our fabrics., how to talk ???,

how to treat women

i would be terrified to live in a world where the bible was the basis for how women are treated. Rape is an acceptable practice in the bible.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

Can you imagine being forceably married to your rapist? This is good and moral? On what planet?

To take this even further, if the woman is prevented from alerting others to her rape (usually what rapists do. It's not much use to rape a woman who is screaming her head off and alerting potential defenders.), she is to be murdered for being a rape victim.

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.

This is the great morality that Christians have and I do not? Keep it! I don't want it.

and human beings in general.

Oh, really? Apparently, Christians view slavery as a perfectly acceptable way to treat humans.

Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

Beating your slaves to death is okay, as long as they don't die right away.

Exodus 21:20-21 NAB When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

Just so nobody says, "Well, that's the old testament, Jesus changed everything, no, he didn't.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)

Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

But no one looks to God to tell them what to do because it's not "popular". Maybe because it would be entirely immoral to actually do so. Being a Christian is not popular. yeah, christians are only more than 75% of the US. Have you noticed how if you talk about how great God is, you will get a whole bunch of wohoos um, what? from Catholics, Jewish, Christian and Muslim alike (Muslims worship the same God as us, just a different name)? But if you DARE to mention Jesus, everyone will go silent, 'cept for Christians of course. maybe because jews and muslims don't view jesus as god? asshat. It is if our world is backwards. it's so insane that jews and muslims don't worship jesus! Everyone rewards and accepts the perverse following fashion trends! and questions and looks down upon the righteous, and wholesome. rape and slavery! Our nation has become like a barren wasteland. unless you're in Pennsylvania, in which case the crucuses (croci?) are blooming! It is a desert in need of the Living Water. the living water of brutal immorality!

The End Result of Dogma

abortion, prochoice, prolife, rape, murder, catholic, christian, christianity, religion, religious, bible, god, jesus,
is that you find yourself arguing that a raped 9 year old must die in the attempt to carry twins to term.

A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil's Roman Catholic church.

. . .

Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 80-pound girl.
"She is very small. Her uterus doesn't have the ability to hold one, let alone two children," Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.

But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a cesarean section.

"It's the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder," Miranda said in comments reported by O Globo.

Forcing the 9 year old- let me repeat that- 9 year old to die in the attempt to carry the fetuses to term is not murder? How is that not murder? How is that NOT the most morally repugnant thing anyone has ever said? How could anyone say that and NOT be ashamed of themselves?

Honestly, what the fuck is wrong with some people?

You Can't Rape a Slut

abstinence, only, conservative, religion, christianity

This is what our children are being taught in school. Gee, you better hope your daughter isn't the victim of both vicious rumors and a rapist in the same year- no justice for her.

Women Want the Dick

feminism, feminist, rape, women, crime

(This is from Feministing, a website that everyone, male or female, should check out.)

Normally, I do not reprint other people's posts, however, this is so horrifying, it needs to be made as public as possible.

Colorado State University Police Chief Dexter Yarbrough was suspended on a litany of charges, like falsifying police documents - but it was this quote that stuck with me:
Yarbrough told students in a class lecture that "women want the dick, even when they say 'no.' They want the dick."

In fairness to Sexual Predator Yarbrough, I do want his dick- bronzed, in a trophy case, under a sign that says, "No Means No." (Anyone know a discrete trophy manufacturer?

Deja Vu Misogyny Tuesday

Yes! YESYESYESYES!!!!!

Dennis Prager has once again graced us with "In Defense of Marital Rape" . . . uh, no . . . "When a Woman Isn't In the Mood: Part II". (I took much glee in dissecting Part I, if you need to play catchup.)

In Part I, I made the argument that any woman who is married to a good man and who wants a happy marriage ought to consent to at least some form of sexual relations as much as possible. (Men need to understand that intercourse should not necessarily be the goal of every sexual encounter.) Wow, the screams of "you big marital rapist twice divorced prick!" from the blogosphere after Part I must have penetrated at least somewhat. In the Part I, Prager did not advance the argument that a woman should engage in "some form" of sexual activity, he advanced the argument that a woman should engage in sex. Sex is very different from a little making out. (Unless he's talking about blowjobs? It's hard to tell.) He didn't really make too much of the whole "good man" thing, either.

What good man wants to have sex with a completely uninterested partner, anyway? I mean, if women are just masturbation aids to you, why not just buy a blowup doll? It'd definitely be cheaper than marriage. Creepy, but cheaper. Ohhhh . . . blowup dolls don't do dishes and vacuum. Got it.

In Part II, I advance the argument that a wife should do so even when she is not in the mood for sexual relations. I am talking about mood, not about times of emotional distress or illness. Way to clear that one up ONE WEEK LATER.

Why? Because you're a sexist, woman-hating, abuse apologist? Because you're a sweaty, unappealing little prick who couldn't get some unless some poor woman (well, two actually, Prager's been divorced twice) bought the idea that she owed it to you? I bet that's not what Prager has to say.

Here are eight eight?! EIGHT?! I couldn't come up with one! reasons for a woman not to allow not being in the mood for sex to determine whether she denies her husband sex. See, it's the woman "denying" her husband sex. Think about that. It isn't the woman declining to participate, it's the woman denying her husband sex. Because women should never be active participants in their own sex lives. We're just masturbation aids with cleaning skills.

1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. What? I have nerve and joint damage from porphyria, and I want it at least 3, 4 times a week. Some women want it more than me, some women want it less, but Prager seems to be basing his assumptions on the two women who eventually told him to get lost. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. young, sexy. old, sexy. middle aged, not so much. Prager is getting creepier with every passing word. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature oh, that's right, I'm a whore. true female nature is to put a lock on my vagina and never, ever think about sex, let alone want it. I forgot., childhood trauma sexual molestation?

Is Prager seriously suggesting that victims of molestation should, instead of serious counseling, just relive their trauma over and over by having sex when they really don't want to?

Wow.

, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man’s “out of nowhere,” and seemingly constant, desire for sex. That's right, a real man always has a hardon. Men are never unconfident about their bodies, preoccupied, tired, or not interested. Not ever. Besides that, regular readers of this blog know, probably to their chagrin, that I occasionally become, out of nowhere, obsessed with [censored] with [censored], which would be so very [censored]. It's not just men that get a little "out of nowhere". It's men- and whores!

2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? ya know, other than donating organs.

actual conversation I had with my husband after reading Part I:

me: how do you know I love you?
hubbie: when you pour me a soda, you put in exactly the right amount of ice, pour it, wait for the fizz to go down, and pour again. i don't have the patience for that.
me: really?
hubbie: oh, and you always make sure my favorite jammie pants are clean.
me: oh.
hubbie: and in the winter, you hand them to me right out of the dryer, when they're still warm. you really get me, honey.
me: sniffle.

my point is, love is so many things. i know my husband loves me because he takes pictures of our dog and emails them to me when i'm stressed out at work. he calls me and tells me about all the funny little things he saw on the interwebs or on tv (we work opposite shifts), because he knows i like that stuff.

he gets me.

ok, continuing on with the snark:

What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood? I dunno. everything we don't get paid for?
What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? totally different issue. If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. because husbands are hardworking, but wives are just lazy wenches. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? sex is now work? that's an unfortunate metaphor, Mr. Prager. (Though undoubtedly an apt one in his wives' cases.) Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man. because women only value a man for his paycheck.

What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? that's women, just a mass of feelings. Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can -- indeed, ought to -- refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why? because. work. and. sex. are. two. different. things. asshole.

This brings us to the next reasons.
3. The baby boom generation elevated feelings to a status higher than codes of behavior. hippies! In determining how one ought to act, feelings, not some code higher than one’s feelings, became decisive: “No shoulds, no oughts.” no marital rapes! In the case of sex, therefore, the only right time for a wife to have sex with her husband is when she feels like having it. uh, yeah. She never “should” have it. uh, yeah. But marriage and life are filled with “shoulds.” sigh

4. Thus, in the past generation we have witnessed the demise of the concept of obligation in personal relations. sexual revolution! guess it didn't work out all that well for Mr. Prager. i'd suggest he have a talk with my hubbie, but i don't fancy visiting my hubbie in jail. We have been nurtured in a culture of rights, not a culture of obligations. i know Mr. Prager seems to think I should regret being nurtured in a "culture of rights", but I don't. I bet black people don't, either. To many women, especially among the best educated thinking is teh evil! and it makes women ugly., the notion that a woman owes her husband sex seems absurd, if not actually immoral. uh, yeah. They have been taught that such a sense of obligation renders her “property.” uh, yeah. Of course, the very fact that she can always say “no” -- and that this “no” must be honored -- renders the “property” argument absurd. no, not if the "no" is regarded as immoral. look, I know the bible says it's ok to own slaves (as long as they come from neighboring countries), but to regard your wife this way is . . . um . . . i don't know a word bad enough for that. A woman is not “property” when she feels she owes her husband conjugal relations. sure she is. she turns herself into a masturbation aid. the blowup doll has more right to respect at that point, because at least she has the excuse of well, being a blowup doll. She is simply wise enough to recognize that marriages based on mutual obligations -- as opposed to rights alone and certainly as opposed to moods -- are likely to be the best marriages.

ok, let's just abandon the idea that marriages 100 years ago were so much better than they are today because now marriages end in divorce. Prior to the invention of antibiotics and modern medicine, people, especially women, didn't live all that long. In fact, the average marriage lasted all of 7 years before somebody died. "Till death do us part" wasn't asking much back then. It had nothing to do with enforced sexual relations.

5. Partially in response to the historical denigration of women’s worth, since the 1960s, there has been an idealization of women and their feelings. we're allowed to vote now! and own property! and have jobs! So, if a husband is in the mood for sex and the wife is not, her feelings are deemed of greater significance -- because women’s feelings are of more importance than men’s. no, but sex is supposed to be a consensual act. it's not consensual if one partner wants to and the other doesn't. One proof is that even if the roles are reversed -- she is in the mood for sex and he is not -- our sympathies again go to the woman and her feelings. bullshit. i actually have seen what he's talking about, but it's related to the idea that Mr. Prager himself espouses- that men are supposed to have permanent hardons and always be ready for it. We're used to the idea of a woman not being in the mood, but the idea of man not in the mood is foreign.

6. Yet another outgrowth of ’60s thinking hippies! is the notion that it is “hypocritical” or wrong in some other way to act contrary to one’s feelings. well, yeah, depending, but to regularly engage in what should be a joyful, pleasureable, consensual act based on obligation and duty is not a good idea. how are you ever supposed to enjoy sex if it becomes just one more chore added on the list. One should always act, post-’60s theory teaches, consistent with one’s feelings. Therefore, many women believe that it would simply be wrong to have sex with their husband when they are not in the mood to. Of course, most women never regard it as hypocritical and rightly regard it as admirable when they meet their child’s or parent’s or friend’s needs when they are not in the mood to do so. because children would die if we didn't meet their needs at all times. because giving your friend a ride doesn't involve getting naked and doing it. because, i give up. this should be obvious. They do what is right in those cases, rather than what their mood dictates. Why not apply this attitude to sex with one’s husband? Given how important it is to most husbands, isn’t the payoff -- a happier, more communicative, and loving husband and a happier home -- worth it? a happy husband versus my own self respect and joy in sex? yeah, i'll take me, thank you very much.

7. Many contemporary women have an almost exclusively romantic notion of sex: It should always be mutually desired and equally satisfying or one should not engage in it. um, yeah. notice Mr. Prager isn't suggesting that men should say, give their wives oral sex on a regular basis and not receive gratification themselves. If he were at least suggesting that both sides of the equation be equal, i might not think him such a douche. Therefore, if a couple engages in sexual relations when he wants it and she does not, the act is “dehumanizing” and “mechanical.” ever had sex when you really don't want to, Mr. Prager? probably not. dehumanizing and mechanical don't even begin to describe how that feels. how about shaming or disgusting or humiliating. try that on for size. Now, ideally, every time a husband and wife have sex, they would equally desire it and equally enjoy it. But, given the different sexual natures of men and women, this cannot always be the case. women don't want it, men do. that's just nature. If it is romance a woman seeks -- and she has every reason to seek it -- it would help her to realize how much more romantic her husband and her marriage are likely to be if he is not regularly denied sex, even of the non-romantic variety. because what guy doesn't like to pound away at a women who would rather be anywhere else?

8. In the rest of life, not just in marital sex, it is almost always a poor idea to allow feelings or mood to determine one’s behavior. picking a restuarant? selecting a movie?buying a book? Far wiser is to use behavior to shape one’s feelings. Act happy no matter what your mood and you will feel happier. not really. i defy the person who just watched their child die to act happy and feel happy. Act loving and you will feel more loving. Act religious, no matter how deep your religious doubts, and you will feel more religious. yeah, that's right. if i just pretend to believe in god, i will. Act generous even if you have a selfish nature, and you will end with a more a generous nature. acting generous would involve actually giving people stuff, in which case you actually would be generous. With regard to virtually anything in life that is good for us, if we wait until we are in the mood to do it, we will wait too long. i don't need to wait around to be happy and loving and generous. you truly are a scary man, Mr. Prager.

The best solution to the problem of a wife not being in the mood is so simple that many women, after thinking about it, react with profound regret that they had not thought of it earlier in their marriage. As one bright and attractive woman in her 50s ruefully said to me, “Had I known this while I was married, he would never have divorced me.” that's right, honey. the only thing he wanted you for was a vagina to stick his penis in. you didn't feel like it and now YOU'LL DIE ALONE! why you wanted this guy is beyond me, but whatever.

That solution is for a wife who loves her husband -- if she doesn’t love him, mood is not the problem -- to be guided by her mind, not her mood, in deciding whether to deny her husband sex. sex. should. be. a. consensual. act.

If her husband is a decent man -- if he is not, nothing written here applies -- a woman will be rewarded many times over outside the bedroom (and if her man is smart, inside the bedroom as well but that's extraneous. whether or not a woman comes is entirely irrelevant.) with a happy, open, grateful, loving, and faithful husband. That is a prospect that should get any rational woman into the mood more often.

Normally I wouldn't gloat over this sort of thing, but Mr. Prager's children are adopted, so no, his genetic code will not be spread all over the planet.